Can you abstain from "judgement"? Be "impartial"?
2 years ago
Nah, that's a load of 💩.
You can only ever be "non-judgemental" if you are a newborn baby.
Otherwise the moment you know anything about anything else you recognize patterns and you start making connections.
You cannot be "non-judgemental" and in fact it is actively bad to be non-judgemental as you would need to be a "gooh gooh gah gah" newborn baby.
What you can do (instead) is:
• recognize what are the judgements you make consciously and subconsciously.
• understand why you are making those judgements.
• identify what are the emotions you experience.
• reflect on the source of those emotions.
But you can only do so on a frame of reference, "nothing" being the absence of anything means you would be unable to make any judgement and you would have to recognize all your judgements as you make them.
Basically you need to understand yourself better rather than some wishy washy thought experiment about "becoming nothing" and thinking that any deviation from "nothingness" is either bad.
You are a grown ass adult. You cannot "become nothing" and you have had no concept of being "nothing" as you were "nothing" decades ago and you have no clear understanding anymore of how that ever felt like.
Rather than trying to understand "how you deviate from nothingness" think about similar stuff but reflecting on why you think the way you think.
It is still an herculean task, but it does not start from a false assumption that "nothingness" can be achieved (or is even desirable).
Once you accept the fact that you are biased (because you are not a baby and learning is quite literally biasing yourself towards certain outcomes for they have become useful in your life) and once you understand why you are biased the way you are (that is: why stuff you now consider "harmful" tendencies have become part of your way of thinking, as they were useful if not desirable at some point in your life) then you can start understanding how to move away from stuff you currently consider bad for yourself.
Remember one thing. You are the way you are because at some point that was beneficial to you. If you want to move way from what you are you need to recognize what you liked about what you are and let go of what makes you into yourself.
The idea that you can be "nothing" stems from this silly notion that free will exists.
The will of a human being is like a particle of water in a riverbed. Said particle of water can be anywhere along the river, and even in the air and in the ground around the river but its time-point-to-time-point presence is defined by its past. And it has a very very huge chance of staying inside the river as that is the highest probability.
You can become as much "nothing" as the chance of a particle of water stopping mid-stream or going upstream to the spring of your life's river.
It can totally happen by chance, but it's just silly to expect it to happen on demand or that it is 100% beneficial.
What you can do is understand the stream of your life.
Understand why your particle of water is where it is. And choose the direction to take knowing the options available.
In theory you can change the stream of your life too.
Streams constantly change in nature (unless handled by human beings in which case tons of money is spent to ... uh... not make streams do what they normally do and wanted in the landscape as that alters the plans of people and people do not like seeing their plans altered).
Telling yourself you should "become nothing" in order to begin to judge yourself is not just "unnatural", it is harmful because you need a frame of reference to know how you behave the way you do and you must accept that the way you are is due to thing that in the past which in the past you did find beneficial and now you do not find beneficial no more.
There is no "nothingness" that can be achieved. All there is is an understanding of:
• where you are
• where you want to be
• why you are where you are
This lets you know how to be where you want to be.
BUT in order to understand why you are the way you are the way you are... you need to understand that you did so because that was beneficial to you.
And if you want to change you need to let go of something that was or still is beneficial in order to embrace a different paradigm.
And depending on how loaded with paradigms you are (which "just" means "how far into your life you have gone and how much you have learned"), changing direction is difficult or even harmful.
So.
You need to understand that change can only be achieved via "suffering" through the period of change.
How much do you value what you are letting go to achieve your goal?
How much do you value your goal?
How much do you value embracing what you do not like to achieve what you want to achieve?
THAT is how you change yourself.
There is no shortcut.
There is no way to do it without suffering at least a little bit.
And the least you suffer the least change you make to your own life.
Because there is no change that can be had without suffering, if you are not suffering because of the change... you are not changing.
You are just going with the stream of your life and have changed nothing about yourself or the environment in which you live.
You are embracing what is comfortable to you.
You are making choices that are not impacting your life in a meaningful way.
And if what you wish to change about yourself impacts other people too... you bet that those other people are going to lash back.
The same way you liked the stuff thast made you who you are other people like the way they are for they worked a lot to be where they are.
And if you want to change stuff about yourself, and that impacts them, you bet they will fight you to end your fight to change yourself.
It gets worse when you want to change other people because you need to understand that if you want other people to change you have to make them understand why what they are doing is harmful.
And you can bet that they will tell you that what they are doing is not harmful at all, it is 100% beneficial. Because it is. From their perspective.
This is why fighting stuff like climate change or racism or fighting for the acceptance LGBTQ+ rights is super hard.
Because people fought hard to be where they are because you are not thinking about why it was beneficial to them.
Because you are telling them they are wrong and they should change without giving them something they like to get.
Because change can only be fought for and if people do not fight for something they like they will not fight, in fight they will see fighting as something harmful and fight against you.
Or they will fight against a distorted perception of you given by their unclear and distorted understanding of who you are.
Just like you are fighting against them due to an unclear and distorted understanding of who they are.
One thing is true. If you do not try and think of why people might be doing what they are doing out trying to protect or save something they value you will only see monsters and evil people doing evil things for evil.
And that is just silly. Yes everybody does something that they can clearly recognize as evil. That is normal. But that is not the standard.
99% of times "evil stuff" comes from people trying to save something that they consider precious. And if you do not wish to understand why they consider it precious, if you only consider other people "evil" for the sake of bein evil, all you will achieve is fighting people to get what you want.
You canget frustrated at people but as long as you consider them a flattened evil you cannot change how they behave the way they do. And if they do not understand why you behave the way you do... and you do not make them value wwhy you value what you value... they will only ever have a distorted perception of you.
And changing something can only be achieved through understanding why things are the way they are and who benefits from the state of things and how they are affecting the state of things.
And change is easier at the beginning.
If (say) you wish to change how AI is currently working.
Go at the source, not at the source of the stuff that hurts you but at who provides what they give to the people who hurt you.
Ask the people doing research "why are you doing what you are doing?" find ways in which their dreams align to yourself find the points of contact.
Let them know what you value and steer them towards what you like to see rather than telling them to kill their dreams.
You cannot change other people by chastising them. That never worked. That will never work.
TL;DR: reflect mindfully about why you are the way you are think about what to expect to build distress tolerance and plan how to achieve interpersonal effective change, and finally: understand/learn how to regulate your emotions based on what you wish to achieve.
You can only ever be "non-judgemental" if you are a newborn baby.
Otherwise the moment you know anything about anything else you recognize patterns and you start making connections.
You cannot be "non-judgemental" and in fact it is actively bad to be non-judgemental as you would need to be a "gooh gooh gah gah" newborn baby.
What you can do (instead) is:
• recognize what are the judgements you make consciously and subconsciously.
• understand why you are making those judgements.
• identify what are the emotions you experience.
• reflect on the source of those emotions.
But you can only do so on a frame of reference, "nothing" being the absence of anything means you would be unable to make any judgement and you would have to recognize all your judgements as you make them.
Basically you need to understand yourself better rather than some wishy washy thought experiment about "becoming nothing" and thinking that any deviation from "nothingness" is either bad.
You are a grown ass adult. You cannot "become nothing" and you have had no concept of being "nothing" as you were "nothing" decades ago and you have no clear understanding anymore of how that ever felt like.
Rather than trying to understand "how you deviate from nothingness" think about similar stuff but reflecting on why you think the way you think.
It is still an herculean task, but it does not start from a false assumption that "nothingness" can be achieved (or is even desirable).
Once you accept the fact that you are biased (because you are not a baby and learning is quite literally biasing yourself towards certain outcomes for they have become useful in your life) and once you understand why you are biased the way you are (that is: why stuff you now consider "harmful" tendencies have become part of your way of thinking, as they were useful if not desirable at some point in your life) then you can start understanding how to move away from stuff you currently consider bad for yourself.
Remember one thing. You are the way you are because at some point that was beneficial to you. If you want to move way from what you are you need to recognize what you liked about what you are and let go of what makes you into yourself.
The idea that you can be "nothing" stems from this silly notion that free will exists.
The will of a human being is like a particle of water in a riverbed. Said particle of water can be anywhere along the river, and even in the air and in the ground around the river but its time-point-to-time-point presence is defined by its past. And it has a very very huge chance of staying inside the river as that is the highest probability.
You can become as much "nothing" as the chance of a particle of water stopping mid-stream or going upstream to the spring of your life's river.
It can totally happen by chance, but it's just silly to expect it to happen on demand or that it is 100% beneficial.
What you can do is understand the stream of your life.
Understand why your particle of water is where it is. And choose the direction to take knowing the options available.
In theory you can change the stream of your life too.
Streams constantly change in nature (unless handled by human beings in which case tons of money is spent to ... uh... not make streams do what they normally do and wanted in the landscape as that alters the plans of people and people do not like seeing their plans altered).
Telling yourself you should "become nothing" in order to begin to judge yourself is not just "unnatural", it is harmful because you need a frame of reference to know how you behave the way you do and you must accept that the way you are is due to thing that in the past which in the past you did find beneficial and now you do not find beneficial no more.
There is no "nothingness" that can be achieved. All there is is an understanding of:
• where you are
• where you want to be
• why you are where you are
This lets you know how to be where you want to be.
BUT in order to understand why you are the way you are the way you are... you need to understand that you did so because that was beneficial to you.
And if you want to change you need to let go of something that was or still is beneficial in order to embrace a different paradigm.
And depending on how loaded with paradigms you are (which "just" means "how far into your life you have gone and how much you have learned"), changing direction is difficult or even harmful.
So.
You need to understand that change can only be achieved via "suffering" through the period of change.
How much do you value what you are letting go to achieve your goal?
How much do you value your goal?
How much do you value embracing what you do not like to achieve what you want to achieve?
THAT is how you change yourself.
There is no shortcut.
There is no way to do it without suffering at least a little bit.
And the least you suffer the least change you make to your own life.
Because there is no change that can be had without suffering, if you are not suffering because of the change... you are not changing.
You are just going with the stream of your life and have changed nothing about yourself or the environment in which you live.
You are embracing what is comfortable to you.
You are making choices that are not impacting your life in a meaningful way.
And if what you wish to change about yourself impacts other people too... you bet that those other people are going to lash back.
The same way you liked the stuff thast made you who you are other people like the way they are for they worked a lot to be where they are.
And if you want to change stuff about yourself, and that impacts them, you bet they will fight you to end your fight to change yourself.
It gets worse when you want to change other people because you need to understand that if you want other people to change you have to make them understand why what they are doing is harmful.
And you can bet that they will tell you that what they are doing is not harmful at all, it is 100% beneficial. Because it is. From their perspective.
This is why fighting stuff like climate change or racism or fighting for the acceptance LGBTQ+ rights is super hard.
Because people fought hard to be where they are because you are not thinking about why it was beneficial to them.
Because you are telling them they are wrong and they should change without giving them something they like to get.
Because change can only be fought for and if people do not fight for something they like they will not fight, in fight they will see fighting as something harmful and fight against you.
Or they will fight against a distorted perception of you given by their unclear and distorted understanding of who you are.
Just like you are fighting against them due to an unclear and distorted understanding of who they are.
One thing is true. If you do not try and think of why people might be doing what they are doing out trying to protect or save something they value you will only see monsters and evil people doing evil things for evil.
And that is just silly. Yes everybody does something that they can clearly recognize as evil. That is normal. But that is not the standard.
99% of times "evil stuff" comes from people trying to save something that they consider precious. And if you do not wish to understand why they consider it precious, if you only consider other people "evil" for the sake of bein evil, all you will achieve is fighting people to get what you want.
You canget frustrated at people but as long as you consider them a flattened evil you cannot change how they behave the way they do. And if they do not understand why you behave the way you do... and you do not make them value wwhy you value what you value... they will only ever have a distorted perception of you.
And changing something can only be achieved through understanding why things are the way they are and who benefits from the state of things and how they are affecting the state of things.
And change is easier at the beginning.
If (say) you wish to change how AI is currently working.
Go at the source, not at the source of the stuff that hurts you but at who provides what they give to the people who hurt you.
Ask the people doing research "why are you doing what you are doing?" find ways in which their dreams align to yourself find the points of contact.
Let them know what you value and steer them towards what you like to see rather than telling them to kill their dreams.
You cannot change other people by chastising them. That never worked. That will never work.
TL;DR: reflect mindfully about why you are the way you are think about what to expect to build distress tolerance and plan how to achieve interpersonal effective change, and finally: understand/learn how to regulate your emotions based on what you wish to achieve.
FA+


"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind, it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate." - Robert A. Heinlein
🤣
As usual many good lessons often come from really awful people. Never disregard what awful people might say.😓
"Of course I tend to treat my opinion as the truth. I have my opinions because I believe them the truth."
Opinions change over time. It is what makes us human beings.
Each time I take a step further inward or outward to examine things, I find myself distrusting my conclusions. I've been wrong about myself and the world in general while having so many different attitudes. Each time, things all fit together perfectly in my mind and I was certain I'd found The Answer. So why not now too, especially since that revelation makes me need trustworthy reference points more than ever? I could be seeing things that aren't there, just so I can have something to grasp onto that I'll understand and accept.
As you can imagine, this doesn't do much for my self-confidence in facing life.
It's important for me to know, and not just in everyday life. I'm getting counseling and therapy. To figure out how to approach things me and my counselor need to know what we're working with, and it'll be hard going if neither of us can pin enough of it down.
It's kind of like the "Dark Knight" Joker. A real-life psychologist pointed out he was so prone to inconsistency when he made open statements, the little clues which happened without him trying to communicate probably hinted at the truth.
And that also sounds like a good decision, whoever was the you who took it.
Sounds like you have BPD, like the rest of my family.
Good luck.
I think it's more so that you are the way you are because you've been able to live that way, not necessarily that it's beneficial to you. Path of least resistance, which can be beneficial to you but not always. But I think that's basically what you meant, just with different words.
Can't say I agree with the necessity of suffering, but perhaps you mean it takes effort to make a change and sometimes that effort requires enduring a hardship. Change is a source of conflict, which can lead to suffering, but the amount of conflict/suffering isn't always proportional to the change itself.
I don't think you can really change people, no matter what strategy you employ. You can point out the harmful effects of their behavior, and that's about it. You can try to assist with thoughtful discussion, but it's up to them to make the change. Some people might find a revelation in your words and be willing to reconsider their behavior, but plenty will refuse to learn or understand. I think there are also a number of people who understand the harm they cause but see their behavior as a necessary evil to prevent something they perceive as worse. That's what fuels a lot of bigotry, in my opinion, alongside willful ignorance. And I wouldn't discount the idea that some people are malicious because they enjoy it, but I'll acknowledge that most bad behavior has more complicated motivations than that.
Thanks for this thought stream, it was very thought-provoking.
You can decide you need to change your gender to feel complete and that might result in what i just described, as well as the months/years of medical support and surgeries and you might need to plan your entire future life around it.
If that is not "suffering for what you believe" i don't know what is, i took an extreme example which is akin to changing the course of the entire river of your life though.
And going through hardships is suffering, just on a different level, so i guess we disagree on the meaning of "suffering". For some people "suffering" might just be other people not agreeing with them. For other people "suffering" might be other people deciding for them what their world view means. For other people yet again suffering is to be forever divided from people one loved but cannot go near again without opening old wounds of bonds that took hard wrenching and a metaphorical scalpels to sever.
If you chalk all of that under "hardships" then... yeah. Normally i consider "hardship" something phisical more than metaphorical. Breaking an arm or a leg ... in a non-metaphorical way and then having to endure months of retraining. that's hardship. Telling people "I need to do this even if i will have to do this alone" that's suffering.
As for changing people. I agree. I am neither a god-like divine figure that vomits the absolute wisdom of truth on which uncultured masses feed and elevate themselves nor I am a telepath with the ability to enter somebody's mind and shoot my head to fight the demons that plague another person. Real life is not a Persona game. Nor it is Psychonauts. Those are wish fulfillment games of the "i can fix this person" kind of fantasy.
But i do not think i can "fix" people because most likely there is nothing to fix. At best there are people who i can talk to and can think about what i said or forget about it.
But "you" cannot fix people. What "you" can do is talk and try to come to an understanding and try and talk through some stuff. I do not have the ultimate absolute truth because that does not exist. What exists is the understanding that we do what we do because we lived lives that wer lived. I can tell people "hey, if you do not wear a mask and get a shot you put me at risk because i am doing immunosuppressant therapy" but i cannot tie them to a chair force them to take a shot, surgically sew a mask to their face and force open their eyes while showing them hundreds of hours of videos about what their acts will do to other people in gruesome detail. No matter how you put it.
That is just plain violence. That is not how it works. But i would really like that "you" are honest on account that if i get sick i have to basically stay indoor for weeks and might risk death just because you believe you are young and healthy and that should be enough. That also is not how it works.
ALSO: I DEMAND THAT F-ING GUITAR AMPLIFIER! WHERE IS IT?! I TOOK 4 SHOTS! WHY DID I NOT GET IT YET?! IS IT A RARE SHINY POKEMON KIND OF DEAL!? 😂
Like, I often told people when it came to the changes that FA employed to its Upload Policy, some people said that it was targeting queer folk, and I had to remind them that, no, it is targeting specific content, it just so happens that some of the content is part of some people's queerness. And the content that was being targeted, while not technically illegal, it is highly contentious content that is likely to make a greater number of people uncomfortable, but also that people abused the exceptions that FA had allowed for so long to basically push the boundaries of the intended purpose of the Policy in the first place. They were abused the letter of the law rather than following the spirit of the law. But because I and a few of my artist friends had no stakes in the change, because it is content none of would have ever touched, we were able to take a more overhead view and have a more impartial understanding of the change to the Upload Policy.
So. I think it is hard to be totally free of impartiality, it is possible to use logic and deductive reasoning to be as unbiased and impartial as possible. Like yes, we can go down the slippery slope of how bias can influence our logic and reason, but the point of using logical reasoning is to minimize the impact of bias by being strict about looking at the information given and not going beyond it.
You can learn from somebody else knowing their biases.
But when you make a judgement call your entire life as prepared you for that judgement.
Starting from the way your brain understands what those noises you hear and see mean.
In fact making an unbiased judgement is bad because an unbiased judgement is utter chaos.
You need bias because bias is how you make a judgement.
"this works and/or makes sense, this does not work and/or does not make sense" you can only say something like this if you are biased towards what works.
In 2023 we made bias into a bad word because we constantly get reminded about how bias fails us.
But in general bias exists because it is a very good thing. It iss literally the basic fundamentals of how we learn things.
We know that works because we have learned what works and learning what works is a bias towards it.
It obviously fails us because if we never adapt to circumstances due to already knowing "what works" then we are doomed to fail the more the circumstances deviate from what we learned "that works".
Which is probably why evolution has selected for the death of single individuals adn having each new generation learn all anew (or most anew) in order to adapt and survive.
Immortality leads (ironically) to death the moment stuff deviates too much from "what you learnes which things work".
As for the upload policy... i do not get why telling people "please do not upload child-like pornography and especially not pokemon" is part of somebody's queerness.
But then again i am biased and i consider "child-like" anything whose head is at least half the width of the shoulders or more and also whose height is below 7 beads (assuming a human-like head shape) and while this would still include a lot of school-age characters a lot of adults have similar proportions, so at that point context is required. If your character looks like your character belongs to school age and goes around dressed in "classic sschool attire" (think british/japanese schools) or goes to a college that suspiciously looks nothing like a college and looks a lot like high school then... yeah. And similarly for people who want to fuck a pikachu. I do not get why you would fuck one unless you reshaped it to look more adult. But... yeah.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/43rp0t1xu.....s%201.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lcqady61x.....s%202.png?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7rmxxg0st.....s%203.png?dl=0
So. I do not understand why that is "part of somebody's queer identity" but then again some people want to dress up in diapers and shit themselves and find that... hot...? somehow...? So. I have no clue. and i better abstain from judgement because all my biases point to "why the f- are you doing sex with that?!"
Like, take flat-earthers, then tend to be biased against rigorously proven scientific results because they do not trust where the information comes from and they want to rely on what their eyes can see, but what we see at an intuitive level can fail us. For all intents an purposes for some everyday things in your small little part of the world, assuming the Earth is flat is a decent assumption, but once you get even 10 kilometers out you will start to have an appreciable curve. So while the Earth might look flat, it is not, and Flat-earthers refuse to accept the scientific evidence, in numerous forms and measures, because of their inherent bias against "authority" because they want to be "independent thinkers" and think we are all "sheeple" for just "believing" what someone else tells us. And the opposite is true, we don't "believe" the Earth is a sphere just because someone told us, but because the people have told us have done the work and explained their work logically. Physics doesn't care about your bias. Physics, is going to function the same way regardless of your bias. Thus why deductive reasoning and logical thinking and the use of evidence is a means to reduce, if not eliminate bias.
Like, we can extend this to the people who think that COVID-19 was "planned" and that governments just want to use it to control us. Real top level foil hat stuff. Rational people who use any basic deductive reasoning would understand that governments really don't want pandemics either because it hurts the economy which hurts those in the government too.
Or the people who think that cell phones are giving us brain cancer, because they are biased against the evidence that says phones aren't because it new technology therefore it must be dangerous. Most rational people would know that cell phones are not giving people brain cancer otherwise we would have seen a huge spike rates.
I think this is what we mean when we say bias is bad. When we let our biases blind us to deductive reasoning and evidence. While in the past our biases and stereotypes came to be as a means of keeping us alive. Like the smell of rot kept us from getting sick, avoiding the unknown generally kept us alive, but as time went on we had to learn that not everything new was going to hurt us, and that we needed to start investigating things. Is that in todays modern age, our biases can often lead to racism, sexism, and other actually harmful views about other people. It is why so much of the rural US is still very racist in a lot of ways and has attitudes like "I take care of me and mine, you could all die tomorrow and I wouldn't care." It is because they are relying on indoctrinated bias. It is also why women for so long got diagnosed with Hysteria and weren't allowed general analgesics during child birth because "It is a divine gift from God and should not be interfered with."
Bias and stereotypes are not inherently bad, it is after all necessary for our brains to actually function so we can knowing something is a tree without having to stop and process what we are looking at. It is how we are able to identify certain things so quickly. It is how our brain reducing processing power.
It is kind of why in regards to the Upload Policy, most people kind of know what "child-like" means, but there are those who are adamant arguing it as useless term for certain fictional species like Kobolds from various media and the Asura from Guild Wars. And the former can be made to still be short and look adult, it is why Peter Dinklage while having dwarfism still looks very adult, even though by certain metrics he could be "child-like" if you applied certain super strict proportional rules, but the Asura from Guild Wars to me look child-like just inherently when you take them out of context, only in their proper context do they look semi-adult.
But as far as your biases go, generally yes, you were taught that X does not go with Y, and for characters with child-like features or even being too non-anthro when discussing "feral" characters, a lot of people get uncomfortable with it largely because we are consciously aware that that neither category can consent. And that is why our biases make us uncomfortable with material that would otherwise depict it, fictional or not, and it is because of the lack of consent those parties can give. Monsters and other Fictional creatures usually get a pass largely because they are not something we have direct experience with.
The human brain is messy, actually almost all brains are messy. So when we talk about wanting unbiased and impartiality, we are generally talking about allowing hard obtained evidence to lead our thinking. Like, if you are presented a murder weapon which has thumbprints, DNA, clothing fibers, etc for someone accused of murder, those are all impartial and unbiased facts about the weapon and the accused murder. So rather than letting our emotion and bias lead our decisions, we let the evidence lead our decisions, granted that uses deductive reasoning and our 'bias' for accepting how the laws of physics work, and how statistical probability works. And I think this is the distinction we are trying to argue over. Is not whether or not we are biased, but the type of bias we are talking about. I am BIASED towards accepting the physical reality works in consistent measurable and observable patterns, and relying on statistical probability to apply deductive reasoning and logic to the context at hand. But for people who might have a personal stake in something, like the Upload Policy, they would be deemed as being biased because they are in a material conflict of interest with the changes to the Upload Policy. Much how when choosing a jury, you want people who would otherwise be 'unbiased' to the context of the trial and not have a conflict of interest, because their biases would materially sway how they apply their decision making.
Telling me "i want a child-like character that behaves in child-like ways and also be sexually active... and that is my personal LGBTQ+ identity" is exactly the reason why i tried to abstain myself to commenting in official channels. I want to support LGBTQ+ people but that feels ridiculous to me because i am extremely biased against (see also:my family) so i felt like shutting up was the better option because i did not want to reopen personal wounds.
And yet... countless cases had murder weapons with dna fibers etc. linking two people and the other one was not a murderer. But biased decisions said "it must be... therefore...". I am fairly sure you saw all the Vsauce2 specials since you said you follow that channel.
Because people know what works and what does not. and they are biased. They also might NOT know why something is problematic for people who went through it (see the small races above) and thus they are biased to wanting somwthing they see nothing wrong about.
Honestly punishing ignorance did not feel like the right thing to do.
But telling people "you are using science wrong" is... well... yeah i am normally for when stuff can kill people. Like people wanting to "deregulate things" because "it gets in the way of my investment".
As far as the Vsauce2 videos, iirc many of them were about how someone messed up or outright lied. Like the two babies that had SIDS and the mother was convicted because the professional math witness literally lied about the statistical probability. And others were bad self perpetuating predictions about where to patrol. So I am well aware of those videos and their implications, but I do feel that many of them were because something critical was overlooked or someone dropped the ball on something.
Because then we have cases where we finally caught the Golden State Killer because of a relative that took one of the DNA tests and allowed their DNA to be used for federal investigations, so some really smart people were able to go up and then back down the family tree.
But outside of criminal stuff, we still have flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, or even anti-climate change people. And part of the latter is because one of the government consultants literally took only parts of graphs from previous research papers to manipulate policy, and now you have so many people who use that as evidence for why they don't believe in climate change. This is kind of what I mean by physics doesn't care about your bias, physics works whether you believe in it or not. We have effectively immutable proof that the Earth is round, vaccines save more lives than they hurt, and that climate change is anthropocentric, and gravity still works.
And like I get some the regulations get in the way of people's "investments" but at the same time footing the bill to the next generation just makes it harder to fix it, but if you keep kicking the ball down the field, you'll eventually run out of field and then it really becomes a problem, granted they'd be dead, so what do they care? It's not their problem right? It is that sort of selfish bias I think needs to be eliminated. It is not about becoming nothing it is about using measurable evidence to inform how we as a society make decisions. Rather than relying one's current biases and being immovable.
I think that is why bias has gained such a bad name because are using it as a means of staying ignorant or being stubborn.
• Vsauce2: exactly. But. When you are told by somebody who looks and sounds like they have scientifically proven evidence, would you go and tell them "that cannot be" and risk sounding like a flat-earther?
Basically all the anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers and idiocies like that exist because there has been proven evidence that some people will just flat out lie and perpetrate an harmful narrative.
Are they correct? No. But the underlying principle is that some people have lost all faith in so-called scientists and seek a "different" way because they know snake oil salesmen exist and they cannot tell the difference.
Or maybe they are educated enough that they believe they can "fill in the voids" of the stuff they do not know... and somebody got there first.
Bill Nye for example was always in favour of the use of nuclear energy, a trend which i have seen spread during 2020 as a "sustainable and clean energy source" and has now died again.
Kurzgesagt several times made videos about topics which were later proven wrong, and they have deleted them because they were being used to spread misinformation.
But here's the deal: That is normally positive in an healthy environment because it gets discussions started and you can discuss things and see if they are true or not.
But discussions about stuff lately are seen as negative. Any discussion about anything. If you do not agree with something you are a "contrarian". You should agree with the majority always. If you "stir trouble" by "starting discussions" you are "problematic" and get kicked out of servers and stuff.
Because people want to rage about all possible topics instead of discussing them. And that is why science "cannot" be wrong, except the scientific method starts with "let's see if i am wrong" as that is THE BASIS of how you do any research.
So even when science is not wrong (and it usually is... by "design" so to speak) people will point at all instances of when science was wrong about stuff and call it "unreliable" and that is how you lose faith...
...in something that by design was made to challenge faith and see what could work under specific scircumstances and what does not work under any circumstance by analyzing all the possible ways to be wrong to find the few ways to be right.
It does not help that some """"scientific"""" magazines are made with the specific purpose of giving people hope about this or that, then crush it then add stuff that has nothing to do with science.
It does not help that in learning institution people are told to listen to the word of god and the trurth that is there.
It does not help that people seek this thing called "truth" that does not exist and has never existed.
Sure, some stuff is true under most circumstances but you can always find the exception or the perceived exception and then you have to see how it fits in the established narrative or how to correct the established narrative. That is how science works. Terry Pratchett called it "lies for children". And he is true. Stuff never works the way it is presented or appears to be "self evident".
And some people need this ineffable non-existing thing called "truth" to put trust in the words of somebody else because that person might be swindling them.
Here is the problem. You do not "do science" to "seek truth" you just do it to make sure some stuff does not work or to see under which circumstances some stuff actually does work.
But people do not like that. People want something clear, something they can hang onto. They want... something that never existed.
My thing has always been evidence first, conclusion after, deductive reasoning. I trust science because it is the best explanation for things we have the moment. And while sometimes things get proven completely wrong, it is more that the knowledge we have is incomplete and it is less that some things are proven wrong and more than we are constantly writing addendums to update out current understanding.
Like, we can prove the Earth isn't flat with some very basic experiments, and the lay person fails to understand that, as you said, science is less about trying to prove a positive and more about trying to disprove it, and when you fail to disprove it, then you can say you have a certain degree in confidence. Like we are 99.99999999999999999% certain that gravity exists, because we have so many observations that not only support it positively but also have failed repeatedly to disprove it. Same thing with Flat-Earth, most people trying to prove a Flat-Earth end up disproving it with their own examples and experiments, but conveniently ignore the flaws in their methods, calculations, assumptions about physics, initial conditions, etc.
Science is more like "this is our current best model for how things with the evidence we have been able to observe thus far." And it is heck of good means at gaining knowledge. And while nothing can be 100% proven true, we are basically as certain as you can get about a lot of things.
Nuclear power is something where the lay person is like "but they might explode" and it is like, and....other power plants can't? So they are biased out of fear and the total devastation a nuclear plant going critical can cause, but when you aggregate the data, nuclear has killed less than 1% of the number of people comparatively killed by burning fossil fuels, and that includes people who died in nuclear disasters.
If you want a good video that covers this thought process and how that bias occurs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTgZ6kOEM8
Like, the problem is people cling to their small fractional amounts of evidence, which creates bias
But funny enough a Food YT'er made a video about why he accepts scientific consensus and why we should really strive to do the same, because it helps sort of not get rid of bias, but reduce its influence by aggregating and averaging it, but also by having repeated evidence, we can get closer to impartiality, because then you are not relying on just one 'opinion' but are instead relying on a body of work research that has consistently been in alignment.
The video for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdsbpCZVZw
And he has a very poignant statement, because he filled it in a cemetery that was used by the wealthy elite at the time, and he pointed out that many of the graves their belonged to children that died of what are now curable and preventable diseases, and that he wishes immensely to just have every anti-vaxxer walk through this site to show them just how much vaccines have reduced childhood mortality and let it sink in that those with children might not have their children today if vaccines were never developed, that the number of children who died before age 10 would still be significant.
Call that bias, but I would call that the impartial truth of the good modern medicine and vaccines have done. The bones of children who might have otherwise lived should be all the impartial truth someone needs. And while yes, complications can happen, as Doctor Mike has pointed out in many of his videos, if there are no potential side effects or bad reactions, then it is likely that the 'medicine' is not actually doing anything. The bones of the dead do care about people's 'opinions/beliefs.' They are dead, they are the physical evidence of what life could still be like, they cannot be biased, because they are dead.
As we observe and learn, we must change how we interact with our world and use what we have learned to inform our perspectives, and it is bias that prevents that, and again, I think we circle back to a matter of semantics and context, because biases are both good and bad. Like, I would tell people I think snakes are the best pets, but that I am biased in thinking that, but I can also gives reasons for that bias. But bias can also be used in the negative where someone is biased against black people and end up being a racist who will always be the first to accuse black people of being criminals even though there is more evidence to show the contrary.
So like, Adam Ragusea also talks about having an "earned opinion" where we need to be careful about having opinions about things we are uninformed about, and I think that is where bias has picked up this negative connotation, is that a lot of people are having bad biased opinions in subjects and on topics they are not informed about. And like, I think both you and I agree we really need more nuclear power, and could easily supply the entire worlds energy off nuclear if really invested in it, we can be called biased, and we are, but we are biased because we know the evidence, we have been informed by those with an 'earned opinion' who have applied the scientific method to do their analysis, and the scientific method is as unbiased as you can get if you follow it with deductive reasoning, not making any more assumptions than is necessary, and following the evidence where ever it leads regardless of your own internal biases. Same thing should be done with Jury's while people cannot be completely unbiased, most people are asked, are you able to use the evidence at hand to make your decision or do you have some sort of conflict that would make your decision making no longer impartial because of internal biases. This would be mostly to attempt to weed out someone who would declare a black person guilty regardless of what the evidence says because of their bias. So I think there is a way to be impartial, and it is to follow and adhere to a strict set of logical and deductive reasoning based on evidence first. That regardless of what someone personal opinion might be, they need to be able to adjust to the evidence. This would be called being open minded, not that you are without bias, but that you are open to allowing yourself to change as evidence and consensus changes, and that is how you can be as close to being impartial as you can.
And honestly most people are like "DO NOT DISS WHAT I KNOW! YOU ARE ATTACKING ME NOT THIS FACT!" like some people with BPD have told me that with this journal post i am attacking BPD treatment as it is based on "achieving nothingness" which... honestly sounds nothing like BPD treatment. BPD treatment is about curbing enthusiasm and about curbing... lack of enthusiasm. It is about finding balance and balance is not nothing, because nothing is the definition of depression. So people will toptally cling to what they know and like if they feel that is being attacked. And they will die on that hill.
Because the common way of thinking is based on "proven methods" aka "the truth that works" and people do not like when you try and tell them all the facets and nouances.
Honestly nuclear power has me like: "Okay, but currently we have this "small" problem called pollution. Like: we have this problem in handling stuff that degrades in a few tens if not at most one hundred years. We have this stuff that is now everywhere which is stuff we crated in the 1950s. And we still have to see the impact of what we did in the 60s 70s 80s etc. And you are telling me the pollution coming from this is highly concentration highly toxic thing that requires a few hundred thousand years before it can safely handled and thooughts can be made about dispersing it. So. Why?" And the best answer so far was "yeah, sure but the pollution produced is ridiculously small compared to the rest". And yet i see these projects about monuments that will have to stand for millennias to warn people that "this place is cursed and there is no power to be gained, only death" which basically reads like an invitation and compelling lure for people to go there and do idiocies. This is the kind of stuff that worries me. There was a project by one person to make an impregnable storage in anctartica. It failed after 20 years (not 200'000) due to... global warming. A similar project in Greenland got repurposed as a "Noah'ss Ark" for the future, because people did not wish to stock there as "it costs too much". F-ing hell. "It costs too much"?!?!
So yeah. My problem with any project that looks too good is "yeah but who is going to invest in this?" and whenever i see investment pitches they sound delusional at best. I do not know who the fuck would believe that. And that probably also helps undermine any faith.
As for the poignant statements, i am reminded of how many people will say "yes but that is natural" because apparently people think that "natural" is "better" which is just... idiotic. My sister in law gave birth to her last child in a fucking bath-tub filled with water, risking hypothermia and other complications as well as a child which might have had lungs filled with water as their first breath... because it's natural. What the fuckign fuck?! But then i went and researched and apparently there is some support to that... as much as there is lack of support or... lack in general as basically it's what i call "Too few studies".
But then if you go by the "too few studies" or "number of studies against" you have the case of transgender people who have both. With the vast majority of studies basically calling them crazy (at best) and very few studies in general and even if there is a reversing trend the majority of studies tell you a different picture. So then you have to explain also how science evoves over time and how there are trends. And then people counter that argument with "well it's just a phase" because ... well.... yeah i guess science does have phases. That is the entire point of science.
And that is the problem. Science's greatest strength gets used against science itself and seen as "a problem". And once people see science's strength as "a problem" once people think that ":nothing is understandable"...
...people come to the most wrong solution "well we did things in this way for so long so this is the right way" or "i trust what i can see because this is the right way" or "this is how nature intended for things to work"...
...and that is how you get right wing activists who feel they are (1)right, who feel they are (2)in a minority and they feel they are (3)constantly being attacked... even if they are often proven completely wrong on all 3 accounts...
...and that is also how you get to left wing activists being "contrarian" on account the damage and erosion is constant and you need to patch the big leaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFSQFtVb87E
...and that is how you get anarchists who just ewant to destroy everything so we can rebuild anew instead of taking good care of what we already have.
Like yeah, people are too eager for answers that are simple to understand, and can't handle any amount of uncertainty, and then also forget nuance and qualifiers when a professional talks or says something.
And there is a lot of things which are under represented in science, like herbal remedies that aren't like Aspirin and select others. Like if something has an herbal origin and it was used as medicine for a long as time, it likely has decent amount of research behind it and it has been refined into a more modern form, but it is still classified as medicine. South American vipers gave us Captopril as a very effective blood pressure medication, but other remedies like Epsom Salts have next to no evidence to support it does anything at all. Other than maybe exfoliate the skin, but in the few studies that have been done, you'd get the same effects as just soaking in warm water. So....again, this circles back to that your average person doesn't understand how to interpret scientific papers, which fair, but then the media doesn't help communicate the information contained within, so now you are left with science communicators trying to distill this information into a form that easy to understand and consume.
So as the video pointed out, a lot of these biases are a result of mistrust, anxiety, fear, and etc.
The other video I haven't watched, but just getting a little bit into tells me that he is at least sensible in that out lives and problems are complex and that our solutions should be as well.
But yeah, this is why I really thing science education in general needs to be so much better than what it is.
The closest we can get to impartialness is by taking the time to understand nuance and evidence based deductive reasoning,
Also the edit is because I tried to move my cursor on my phone and hit post because of where I wanted to move the cursor.
"Once a man has changed the relationship between himself and his environment, he cannot return to the blissful ignorance he left. Motion, of necessity, involves a change in perspective."
~Commissioner Pravin Lal
Your life taught you what works and what does not work.
That is the literal definition of PREJUDICE and BIAS.
The fact that prejudice and bias are often referred as "distortions" si due to the fact that most of the times we remember where prejudice and bias are used wrong.
For example prejudice and bias against groups of people who have done nothing wrong.
Because in "your" personal life all "you" have learned is that they "totally do something wrong".
Though often this is based on no actual experience just what "you" have learned from those around "you".
Or it is based on few instances of people who totally did something wrong and also happened to be part of "group X", but not because "group X" routinely engages in that.
However that is quite literally also how you can make ANY learned or informed statement.
So the only unbiased impartial statement can only come from an uninformed and ignorant sorce.
The more ignorant and uninformed the more unbiased the judgement can be.
So we live in a society that demands opinions that are at the same time informed and uninformed.
That shuns both the good and bad kind of prejudice if they do not align with the notions we like.
Telling people you have an informed opinion often is seen as you telling them that your opinion should be valued more than theirs, so it is """"elitist"""" which fuels hate against you.
But giving people uninformed opinions means "going by your guts", and last i checked everybody's guts are full of 💩.
Which is how we end up with so many conspiracy theories and distrust and polarization.
We seek people who reinforce what we already know not people who challenge what we know, we never try and bridge what we know with what other people know we just tell them we do not value their knowledge or opinons and we deny reality and substitute it with our own.
Because learning stuff that cements our pre-existing beliefs is nice. Learning stuff that shakes what we know is not nice.
And we know that there are people who will try and tell us what is "the truth" and will try and swindle us and tell us mean things.
So we instinctively reject anything we do not like.
But by doing so... we polarize ourselves. And we never try to see the world with the eyes of people who are different from us.
Because seeing the world from the point of view of people who do not have the same knowledge that we have means that you have to accept whatever life has taught to those people.
And that means accepting stuff that is hard to digest or even think about because it is stuff that you do not like. But that other person sees nothing wrong in that.
In a world where we are as connected as we ever have been... people decided that they do not like to know stuff that challenges their world view.
And people chose ignorance and hate against trying to talk to each other and leaarning from each other.
And in a world where knowledge is one search away people chose to consider anybody who is ignorant of their plight as the kind of person who actively hates them... because that is what ignorance looks like.
You have covered the genesis of personal perception that precludes arbitrary deviations from the currently working behavior model due to its considerable ontological momentum, and that alone has made the me do some significant thinking.
You have explained how that inertia and unseen stabilizing factors can be mindfully counteracted or bypassed for purposes of self-betterment and expanding one's comfort zone and area of expertise.
But I really appreciate the way you have brought your line of thinking in for a landing with a very topical application of that concept to adjusting the way one should be trying to influence others.
I think that to a certain degree it is understood that bias is unavoidable.
When clever people talk about the lack of bias, they usually refer to specific, explicit enforcement of agendas and interests that, e.g. one party refusing to negotiate with the other on account of some intrinsic moral flaw that is neither acknowledged nor deemed subject to changing by the accused; "trying to be nonjudgmental" here means scaling back the extreme, counterproductive rhetoric, and trying to find common ground that could result in helpful improvements for all parties.
Like you pointed out, if one is opposed to the harm of the "AI" technology, there is not sense in trying to force the inventors, the developers, the legal entities exploiting that tech, or the the end users to simply abandon this tech, forfeiting its benefits. But you can suggest less harmful compromises, offering new benefits to those people for moving into the direction you consider to be better.
Or you could just concentrate on seizing political power and enforcing a ban on that technology -- people seem to find that option alluring, too, although even in democratic politics, the most successful actors are also the ones capable of reconciling such conflicts, rather than crushing one side of the disagreement under the iron boot of repression.
A dam requires constant maintenance vigilance and clearing all the filth that accumulates, it also floods entire valleys and destroys ecosystems. It does produce electricity tho.
Redirecting a river might be as simple as digging a 5 meter canal with a shovel when done very early. And possibly watching out for erosion of the sandbanks along the river as it flows downhill.
A lot of times efforts that seem simple and direct with a benefit ... are not. And efforts that seem pointless herculean and impossible... are also not.
It all depends on the perspective and where you apply the effort.
Right now i hope to inform to prevent what happened in the 2000s when "everything" shifted to computer art, leaving a dearth of investment on previously very valuable artistic jobs that saw a ton of people's lives destroyed by this "fancy" computer art. And it happens every few decades.
I just hope that this time things could be made better so that the new tech works in service to established practices instead of supplanting them.
Industrial innovations have a long history of tragic collateral damage.
What used to be entire legions of diversely bred horses stomping about, driving humanity's lifeblood along, are now a few quaint hobby equestrian islands; the breathtaking sailing ship designs and production techniques have gone the way of the Flying Dutchman; all the master stonemasons and ironsmiths have drowned in pits of bubbling concrete and got pulverized by the stamping presses...
We have to be on alert for the beginning of such revolutions, anticipate the next class of victims, and support them through the process of adjustment to this new technological level.
Thanks for being such a lively part of that harm-dampening effort!
Speaking of long term, what do you reckon about future energy sourcing?
Cell economy plus wind and solar? Mass transition to tidal or geothermal generation? Just go nuclear forever?
It's 2023, we lost about 8 years before getting one, so now "we" have a fixed point of judgment to discuss anything instead of navel gazing and saying stuff at random.
This means all legislators that were idling around shouting nonsense now have a basis over which to make laws for that Paris deal.
We still have 27 years before the first deadline of the paris deal, i am starting to feel optimistic for once.
My guess is that:
• We will soon see incentives and legislation which will (obviously) miss the mark or overshoot for the next 5 to 10 years, then we will get something solid.
• After that we will (obviously) miss the 2050 deadline (which was impossible from the beginning) as we will falter, stall argue over what's best for the next 10 to 15 years.
• After that we will have understood what works within each economy and start gaining traction and momentum
• Right now my prediction is that we will get to 2.1 degrees of increase by 2100 which would normally be catastrophic IF NOT that in this specific case we will blatantly be already overcorrecting.
• Which will result in a better and more stable scenario than anticipated for 2150
Moreover:
• Due to those regulations by 2100 world population will have severely decreased, due to better standards of living, which will further "help" with stabilizing climate.
if you are asking yourself "but what does all of this have to do with what's the best type of energy?" well... everything and nothing.
It is a projection of something which will 100% affect and shape the effects of humanity on our planet and therefore Energy production and consumption are 100% also affected.
Which one will be chosen? F**k me if i know. Zero clue right now. But whatever will be the most popular 15 years from now will be steamrolling everything else for the next 100 years.
It will be the new "coal and petroleum" we are about to enter a period of static increase of decrease if that makes any sense to you given what i said.
😂👍💖💯